Includes overview and history. L2 info. SpaceX comments to us. L2 graphics and photos and general excitement about a new rocket being added to the family!

Special thanks to Okan170 and Jdeshetler for their continued efforts on the visuals. Remember, these aren't SpaceX renderings, they are created in L2 via data (although we've been showing them to SpaceX - right to the top - and they really like them too!)

Giving this a standalone thread and we'll start another new FH general thread later.

I'm surprised that the hangar is so close to the pad again. Since they are going to be laying new rails for the TEL and there seems to be plenty of space available, you might think it would be prudent to build it further back along the causeway to protect it from a (hopefully unlikely) failure like Antares.

It is my understanding that LC-39A will also be used for NASA-funded Falcon-9 v.1.1 launches too, including Dragon cargo and crew. I'm sure there are lots of folk at KSC who are glad that ISS crews will launch from their side of the island rather than from CCAFS.

It occurs to me that the RSS could be re-purposed too, some structural modifications so it folds around the Falcon-9 to allow on-pad servicing rather than having to roll back to the HIF. From the article, I got the impression that this isn't in SpaceX's plans right now but it might be at least a Powerpoint proposal somewhere in the organisation.

« Last Edit: 11/17/2014 04:43 pm by Ben the Space Brit »

Logged

"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

It is my understanding that LC-39A will also be used for NASA-funded Falcon-9 v.1.1 launches too, including Dragon cargo and crew. I'm sure there are lots of folk at KSC who are glad that ISS crews will launch from their side of the island rather than from CCAFS.

It occurs to me that the RSS could be re-purposed too, some structural modifications so it folds around the Falcon-9 to allow on-pad servicing rather than having to roll back to the HIF. From the article, I got the impression that this isn't in SpaceX's plans right now but it might be at least a Powerpoint proposal somewhere in the organisation.

That's my understanding, too. I wonder when the first CRS launch will be from LC-39A.

It seems that the tower is not needed either, since the TEL can provide the function.

And can some one tell me what is Boca Chica launch site intended for? Forgive me if this question has beem asked.

The FSS tower will be used for crew access to Dragon 2 (and emergency egress facilities). It also provides lightning protection.

Boca Chica will be for commercial GEO missions. LC-39A will be for NASA missions and manned missions. SLC-4W will be for SSO and other high-inclination missions. LC-40 will be for DoD/NRO missions and any unmanned commercial missions to orbits unsuitable for Boca Chica or Vandenberg.

It is my understanding that LC-39A will also be used for NASA-funded Falcon-9 v.1.1 launches too, including Dragon cargo and crew. I'm sure there are lots of folk at KSC who are glad that ISS crews will launch from their side of the island rather than from CCAFS.

It occurs to me that the RSS could be re-purposed too, some structural modifications so it folds around the Falcon-9 to allow on-pad servicing rather than having to roll back to the HIF. From the article, I got the impression that this isn't in SpaceX's plans right now but it might be at least a Powerpoint proposal somewhere in the organisation.

No, they are just delaying its destruction. It is not a good idea to reuse it.

Also, there is no difference whether ISS crews launch from KSC or CCAFS.

Also, there is no difference whether ISS crews launch from KSC or CCAFS.

In engineering and operational terms? Quite correct. However, this is about politics, perceptions and managerial turf. In that environment, it matters very much.

In this case, I'm not sure about that. After all Boeing is launching CST from the CCAFS side. SpaceX wanted 39A primarily because it's a time/cost saving, pre-existing infrastructure they can economically modify to use for their Dragon2 Crewed Service Contracts as well as FH.

Also, there is no difference whether ISS crews launch from KSC or CCAFS.

In engineering and operational terms? Quite correct. However, this is about politics, perceptions and managerial turf. In that environment, it matters very much.

No, they are subject to the same range constraints. There is no oversight by the USAF at either site and there is no oversight by NASA at either site. NASA has no more control on KSC than on CCAFS for commercial launches.